Supreme Court Ruling Hailed as Victory for Conservation

In a case that has been closely watched by conservation groups on the Vineyard, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Thursday that a plot of forestland in the Berkshires cannot be taxed.

The ruling reverses a decision by the state appellate tax board which had upheld assessors in the small town of Hawley in the dispute with the New England Forestry Foundation. In 2010 assessors refused to grant the foundation a charitable tax exemption on 120 acres it owns in the town, sending the foundation a $172 tax bill. The case was ultimately appealed to the state’s highest court.

Issues in the case reached beyond whether conservation groups should be exempt from paying taxes, and included an examination of whether conservation land that is not open to the public for traditional recreational uses provides wider public benefits.

In the 13-page ruling issued Thursday, the court found that it does.

“Historically, the ‘benefit’ provided by land held as open space or in its natural state has been measured by the direct access of people to that land for such purposes as recreation, scenic views, or education” the decision said. “However, as the science of conservation has advanced, it has become more apparent that properly preserved and managed conservation land can provide tangible benefit to a community even if few people enter the land.”

The court found that the New England Forestry Foundation lessens government burdens by protecting the environment and achieving state conservation goals. And public access is not required to qualify for an exemption, it said.

“It is fair and proportional to tax privately held land but to exempt those lands that are held charitably so long as the charity in fact uses the land in a manner that contributes to the community and reduces the burdens of government,” the court wrote.

The case was argued before the court this winter, and friend of the court briefs were filed on both sides. Conservation groups, including the Trustees of Reservations, sided with the forestry foundation, while the Massachusetts Association of Assessing Officers sided with the town. The case also involved questions about the value of open space.

The decision took special note of the historic role of the Trustees as the first land conservation entity of its kind in the United States. “The [1891] statute creating the Trustees was inspired by the writings of Charles Eliot who proposed the creation of a board of trustees that would be empowered to hold important parcels of land for preservation and public enjoyment much like the Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts had been established . . .”

And it noted public policies that favor environmental protection in other states, such as California. “We are not alone in recognizing conservation organizations as serving a traditionally charitable purpose . . .” the decision said in part.

Island officials who had watched the case closely called it a victory for conservation on the Vineyard.

“It’s a resounding victory for conservation,” Sheriff’s Meadow Foundation executive director Adam Moore told the Gazette Thursday. “I’m very pleased by the decision and I look forward to reading it in detail and understanding everything that the Supreme Judicial Court decided on the matter. I know it to be a victory for conservation and we’re very pleased by that.

“In what I’ve read so far, the court’s decision speaks in several respects to the many values of conservation land,” he added.

According to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission 2009 Island Plan, 36 per cent of land on the Island, or 20,720 acres, is protected open space.

Vineyard Conservation Society executive director Brendan O’Neill said he had yet to read the complete decision but was printing it out and planned to study it. “All I can say is what you might expect, which is from a land conservation perspective, we’re incredibly pleased with the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Hawley,” he said, adding: “Just from scanning it, they were quite supportive of the position that conserving land serves a wide range of public benefits. We’re thrilled.”

Ronald H. Rappport, longtime town counsel for five of the six Vineyard towns, concurred. “I think it’s a terrific decision for the Vineyard,” Mr. Rappaport said. “A lot of people have given thousands and thousands of acres of land to preserve the Vineyard, and if this case had gone the other way it would make it very difficult for the conservation groups to accept gifts and maintain the properties. And so for the Vineyard and the rest of the state, it’s a tremendous victory for conservation.”

Comments (4)

Logged, Vineyard Haven

I'm not convinced that this was the right decision. Private logging operations are permitted to enter this particular forest and log it "for profit". Here's what NEFF states about this decision:
What does NEFF do with the revenues it earns from timber harvests?
Since we first acquired the Hawley land in 2000 we have earned $35,712 in gross timber revenues from that property and plowed our earnings right back into our programs and long term mission - to protect New England's forests and encourage sustainable forest management, so that the landscape will feel like New England for all future generations.
That's revenue to run their outfit. Then you need to take into account the fact that the timber harvested is profiting private enterprise. This reminds me of the episode at the Priscilla Hancock property where mature trees and shrubs were taken by private enterprise for personal profit. As long as outside private enterprises are profiting from this property which has been taken off the tax roles it's not so cut and dry as the Gazette would like to portray.

Logged, any private loggers will still have to pay a Stumpage Fee, a unique tax we have up here that compensates towns for the harvesting of resources...so, from that perspective, the tax-free status of preserved land has been upheld, while a fee will still be charged for any for-profit use. It works.

Thom, Stumpage fees haven't been paid to the town of Hawley in years. When the state changed the chapter 61 laws stumpage fees to the town ended. That $172.tax bill would be the only fee or tax to the town that I'm aware of. If you know of other fees that are paid concerning that particular parcel let us know. I actually like what the NEFF is doing over all but bickering over a measely $172. after the chapter 61 status is over the top.

I read somewhere that in the last week NEFF received over $10,000 in tax bills from other towns in MA that wanted to be paid taxes, dollars that the SJC determined do not have to be paid. Don't get hung up on the $172 - forcing charities to pay taxes would effect the future protection of a lot land. Some land trusts operate on a $10,000 a year budget and the taxes on one or two highly valued but highly important parcels of open space could swamp them if they had to pay taxes, particularly on the Vineyard. When an art museaum takes your admission fee it puts it into the mission of the organization - to show you more art - art selected by the Board of the organization not the Assessors of the town the museum is in. NEFF took its timber revenues and bought more land and paid its foresters and land acquisition and education specialists to keep the mission moving forward. That's why the SJC said they were serving charitable cause, and that the charity had the right(and obligation) to determine how to invest in the mission. - everything goes back into the mission and you can't accomplish the mission without supporting the organization and the programs. If a charity deviates from its mission it loses its charitable status.